Talk:Morton Horwitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I think that my initial entry was evenhanded enough.

Gaius Catullus is incorrect in saying that Horwitz' first book "is not regarded as a serious work of legal historical scholarship despite its apparent continuing popularity in reading lists in America." The book is included in reading lists precisely because it is regarded as a serious work. That's not to say that most scholars agree with his methodology or conclusions. Legal history, like every academic discipline, has works that are regarded as major works even though virtually no one in the field would endorse them tout court. I think that moving Gaius Catullus' comments to a section on "Criticism" is a more fair way to approach criticisms.